Occlusal contact changes after the active phase of orthodontic treatment

An In Vivo Study Using T-scan III Occlusal Analysis System: Does the Extraction Pattern Affect the Final Occlusion in Orthodontics?

BACKGROUND

The assessment of an orthodontic patient's occlusion throughout the treatment and after debonding permits the orthodontist to improve functional occlusion through interventional tooth movements, thus rendering the overall treatment more efficient in terms of stability and masticatory efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of four first premolar extractions during orthodontic treatment on the distribution of bite force using the T-scan III system (Tekscan Inc., Boston, MA).

OBJECTIVE

We aim to evaluate the effect of four first premolar extractions during orthodontic treatment on bite force distribution.

METHODS

Ten patients (mean age: 16 ± 2.72 years), who would be treated orthodontically with four first premolar extractions to treat their teeth crowding, were selected for this study. The T-scan III system was utilized to measure the occlusal bite force of the patients before and after treatment, and the findings were compared.

RESULTS

There was a non-statistically significant decrease in the occlusal bite force's mean in the arch's anterior segment from 24.45% (± 8.50%) to 14.25% (± 12.93%) after the orthodontic treatment. A non-statistically significant increase in the occlusal bite force in the posterior right segment of the arch from 37.64% (± 18.13%) to 41.65% (± 11.52%) was found after the treatment. The occlusal bite force in the posterior left segment of the arch increased insignificantly from 30.53% (± 20.00%) to 43.95% (± 13.22%). There was an even distribution of bite force on both sides of the arch by the end of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic treatment helps to achieve a functional occlusal balance by assisting in the uniform distribution of biting force on both sides of the arch. There was no statistically significant change in the distribution of bite force recordings collected before and after orthodontic treatment, indicating that the removal of the four first premolar teeth does not impact the functional aspect of occlusion. The T-scan III system serves as an essential guide during orthodontic treatment to monitor occlusal changes.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time. Retainers vary in shape, material, and the way they are made. Adjunctive procedures are sometimes used to try to improve retention, for example, reshaping teeth where they contact ('interproximal reduction'), or cutting fibres around teeth ('percision'). This review is an update of one originally published in 2004 and last updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of different retainers and retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. We excluded studies with aligners.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Outcomes were stability or relapse of tooth position, retainer failure (i.e. broken, detached, worn out, ill-fitting or lost), adverse effects on teeth and gums (i.e. plaque, gingival and bleeding indices), and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous data, risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and hazard ratios (HR) for survival data, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses when similar studies reported outcomes at the same time point; otherwise results were reported as mean ranges. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index (crookedness of anterior teeth) to measure relapse, judging the minimum important difference to be 1 mm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants. The studies evaluated: removable versus fixed retainers (8 studies); different types of fixed retainers (22 studies) or bonding materials (3 studies); and different types of removable retainers (16 studies). Four studies evaluated more than one comparison. We judged 28 studies to have high risk of bias, 11 to have low risk, and eight studies as unclear.  We focused on 12-month follow-up.  The evidence is low or very low certainty. Most comparisons and outcomes were evaluated in only one study at high risk of bias, and most studies measured outcomes after less than a year. Removable versus fixed retainers Removable (part-time) versus fixed   One study reported that participants wearing clear plastic retainers part-time in the lower arch had more relapse than participants with multistrand fixed retainers, but the amount was not clinically significant (Little's Irregularity Index (LII) MD 0.92 mm, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61; 56 participants). Removable retainers were more likely to cause discomfort (RR 12.22; 95% CI 1.69 to 88.52; 57 participants), but were associated with less retainer failure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98; 57 participants) and better periodontal health (Gingival Index (GI) MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02; 59 participants). Removable (full-time) versus fixed   One study reported that removable clear plastic retainers worn full-time in the lower arch did not provide any clinically significant benefit for tooth stability over fixed retainers (LII MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 84 participants). Participants with clear plastic retainers had better periodontal health (gingival bleeding RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; 84 participants), but higher risk of retainer failure (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.38 to 8.47; 77 participants). The study found no difference between retainers for caries.  Different types of fixed retainers Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nitinol versus conventional/analogue multistrand One study reported that CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainers were better for tooth stability, but the difference was not clinically significant (LII MD -0.46 mm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.21; 66 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between retainers for periodontal health (GI MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 2 studies, 107 participants), or retainer survival (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 1 study, 41 participants). Fibre-reinforced composite versus conventional multistrand/spiral wire  One study reported that fibre-reinforced composite fixed retainers provided better stability than multistrand retainers, but this was not of a clinically significant amount (LII MD -0.70 mm, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.23; 52 participants). The fibre-reinforced retainers had better patient satisfaction with aesthetics (MD 1.49 cm on a visual analogue scale, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.22; 1 study, 32 participants), and similar retainer survival rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 7 studies; 1337 participants) at 12 months. However, failures occurred earlier (MD -1.48 months, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.08; 2 studies, 103 participants; 24-month follow-up) and more gingival inflammation at six months, though bleeding on probing (BoP) was similar (GI MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; BoP MD 0.33, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.79; 1 study, 40 participants). Different types of removable retainers Clear plastic versus Hawley When worn in the lower arch for six months full-time and six months part-time, clear plastic provided similar stability to Hawley retainers (LII MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.67; 1 study, 30 participants). Hawley retainers had lower risk of failure (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; 1 study, 111 participants), but were less comfortable at six months (VAS MD -1.86 cm, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; 1 study, 86 participants). Part-time versus full-time wear of Hawley There was no evidence of a difference in stability between part-time and full-time use of Hawley retainers (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.68; 1 study, 52 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another. More high-quality studies are needed that measure tooth stability over at least two years, and measure how long retainers last, patient satisfaction and negative side effects from wearing retainers, such as tooth decay and gum disease.

Comparison of settling of occlusion in modified and full coverage thermoplastic retainers using T-scan

Objectives:

The main intent of the study was to evaluate and compare the occlusal bite forces after settling between conventional and modified thermoplastic retainer groups using T-Scan.

Material and Methods:

This study comprised a total of 20 patients, who approached the retention phase after completion of fixed orthodontic therapy. After debonding (T0), occlusal analysis using the T-Scan system was done at centric occlusion. Group I (control) – 10 patients received the conventional thermoplastic retainer and Group II (experimental) – 10 patients received the modified thermoplastic retainer. Patients were instructed to wear the retainer continuously for 6 months except while eating and brushing. T-scan analysis after 6 months (T6) was done to evaluate the changes in occlusal bite forces. The obtained data were evaluated using STATA/IC software version 16.1 at a predetermined probability value of 0.05 which was considered significant.

Results:

The result obtained from this study was suggestive of significant improvement in bite force levels at centric occlusion in the modified thermoplastic group compared with the conventional group. Comparing the right (P < 0.17) and left (P < 0.01) posterior region, there was significant increase on the left side. A significant increase at maximum centric occlusion (P < 0.01) was seen in the region of the first molars. The anterior region did not show any improvement (P < 0.62) after 6 months of retention.

Conclusion:

Partial coverage of thermoplastic retainer significantly improves the occlusal contacts and force levels. The maximum change was seen in the posterior region and the minimum change in the anterior region at centric occlusion.

Occlusal contact area changes with different retention protocols: 1-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occlusal contact area and cast-radiograph evaluation (CRE) score changes in patients with 3 different retention protocols after a 1-year retention period.

METHODS

A total of 90 patients with acceptable final occlusion according to American Board of Orthodontics CRE were equally divided into 3 groups according to the retention protocol: upper bonded retainer and lower Essix or bonded retainer (Essix group); upper bonded retainer and Hawley or lower bonded retainer (Hawley group); and upper bonded retainer and lower bonded retainer (bonded retainer group). Digital models were used to assess occlusal contact area changes after a 1-year retention period. The follow-up occlusion models were assessed with the American Board of Orthodontics CRE.

RESULTS

Occlusal contact areas increased significantly in the Hawley and bonded retainer groups for all teeth except incisors. The bonded retainer group showed the greatest amount of settling, but differences with the Hawley group were not statistically significant. However, statistically significant decreases in occlusal contact areas were recorded for the Essix group except for incisors. A decrease of CRE scores was seen in the Hawley group, whereas a statistically significant increase was recorded in the Essix group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Hawley and bonded retainers allowed settling of the occlusion during the retention phase, whereas the Essix retainer did not allow relative vertical movement of the posterior teeth. The Hawley group showed improvement in the total CRE score, whereas the Essix group showed worsening.

Comparison of Occlusal Contact Changes During Retention Between Hawley-Type Retainers and Other Retention Appliances: A Systematic Review

Background: Achieving adequate and broad occlusal contacts following orthodontic treatment usually is performed during retention phase, and it ensures good intercuspation of posterior teeth and post-treatment stability.

Objective: To investigate the changes in occlusal contacts with the use of Hawley-type retainers (Hawley’s and wrap around retainers) and compare them with other retention appliances.

Methods: The search included articles that were published until December 2018 in three popular databases. Selection criteria comprised studies evaluating number and area of occlusal contact changes during or at the end of retention phase, following orthodontic treatment. After study retrieval and selection, data extraction and individual study risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results: A total sum of eight studies reporting on outcome comparison between Hawley-type retainers with other retention appliances and untreated controls were selected. In all the eight studies, the risk of bias was unclear since blinding and random sequence generation was not reported. In all the eight reported studies, it was concluded that the number of occlusal contacts improved during retention period with Hawley type retainers, but when comparisons were done in between retainers, only two studies reported that Hawley-type retainers were better.

Conclusion: This systematic review concludes that the number and area of occlusal contacts improved during retention with Hawley-type retainers. The overall quality of available literature is poor and unclear to support the conclusion that Hawley-type retainers are better than other existing retainers in improving occlusal contacts.

The origin and evolution of the Hawley retainer for the effectiveness to maintain tooth position after fixed orthodontic treatment compare to vacuum-formed retainer: A systematic review of RCTs

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to summarize the effectiveness and patient compliances of Hawley retainer (HR) compared to vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) and provide the best clinical evidence related to the use of these retainers for maintaining tooth position following fixed orthodontic appliance so that orthodontists can decide which are the most appropriate methods and retainers to use for each individual patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Orthodontic journals, and relevant articles for eligible studies. Only RCTs studies were included; no restrictions on publication status or language were applied until May 20, 2019. We collected the study related to the effectiveness of these two retainers. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes, survival time, cost-effectiveness, occlusal contact, and adverse effect on gingival and speech articulation were also collected.

RESULTS

We finally included fifteen articles in the qualitative synthesis. No significant difference was observed in patients who had worn the retainers on a full-time or part-time, basis in both HR and VFR in terms of the change in arch widths and arch lengths. VFR appeared to be better at preventing relapses of incisor irregularity than HR. Patient satisfaction with VFR was higher than with HR, and there was no difference in survival rates for both types of retainers. In terms of cost-effectiveness, occlusal contacts, and gingival health, there were a few studies with limited evidence to compare these retainers. For speech articulation, VFR was less affected in comparison to HR.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that wearing VFR provides better relapse prevention of incisor irregularity than HR in both arches, indicating their usefulness in clinical practice. However, there is no evidence to show that the pattern of time duration wearing these retainers provides excellent stability. Overall, there are insufficient high-quality RCTs to provide additional evidence, and further high-quality RCTs research is needed.

Cyclosporine H Improves the Multi-Vector Lentiviral Transduction of Murine Haematopoietic Progenitors and Stem Cells

Haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) have the potential for lifetime production of blood and immune cells. The introduction of transgenes into HSCs is important for basic research, as well as for multiple clinical applications, because HSC transplantation is an already established procedure. Recently, a major advancement has been reported in the use of cyclosporine H (CsH), which can significantly enhance the lentivirus (LV) transduction of human haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs). In this study, we employed CsH for LV transduction of murine HSCs and defined haematopoietic progenitors, confirming previous findings in more specific subsets of primitive haematopoietic cells. Our data confirm increased efficiencies, in agreement with the published data. We further experimented with the transduction with the simultaneous use of several vectors. The use of CsH yielded an even more robust increase in rates of multi-vector infection than the increase for a single-vector. CsH was reported to reduce the innate resistance mechanism against LV infection. We indeed found that additional pretreatment could increase the efficiency of transduction, in agreement with the originally reported results. Our data also suggest that CsH does not reduce the efficiency of transplantation into immune-competent hosts or the differentiation of HSCs while enhancing stable long-term expression in vivo. This new additive will surely help many studies in animal models and might be very useful for the development of novel HSC gene therapy approaches.

Efficacy of the mini tooth positioner in improving orthodontic finishes

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the mini tooth positioner in improving the quality of orthodontic treatment outcomes, as measured by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) cast-radiograph evaluation (CRE).

METHODS

Thirty patients were treated prospectively with a minipositioner for 4-6 weeks immediately after debond. Sixteen patients who had received a maxillary vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) and fixed mandibular canine-to-canine retainer at time of debond were enrolled retrospectively as control subjects. Models from time of debond (T1) were graded with the use of the ABO CRE and compared with models obtained 4-6 weeks after debond (T2) for each group.

RESULTS

For the minipositioner group, the overall CRE score improved significantly by an average of 6.77 points. Significant improvements were noted in the categories of alignment and rotations (-0.68), marginal ridges (-1.40), buccolingual inclination (-0.45), overjet (-0.97), and occlusal contacts (-3.00). For the control group, overall CRE score improved significantly by an average of 1.16 points. Only the categories of overjet (-0.38) and occlusal contacts (-1.22) showed significant improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

The minipositioner is an effective tool in improving the overall finish of orthodontic treatment. In the 4-6 weeks after debond evaluated in this study, the minipositioner significantly outperformed the maxillary VFR/mandibular fixed canine-to-canine retainer in improving final treatment outcomes.

Changes in occlusal function after extraction of premolars: 2-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of extraction and the number of teeth extracted on changes in occlusal function by measuring occlusal contact area and force before and after orthodontic treatment with a fixed appliance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Female patients treated with a fixed appliance were divided into nonextraction (n = 36), two maxillary premolar extraction (n = 31), and four premolar extraction (n = 18) groups. Bite pressure-sensitive films were used to analyze the occlusal contact area and force. Measurements were performed before treatment (Pre-Tx), immediately afterward (After-Tx), and 2 years later (2Y After-Tx). The data were analyzed using a linear mixed model and the post hoc Bonferroni test.

RESULTS

The occlusal contact area and force after treatment decreased significantly compared with Pre-Tx values but were increased 2 years later in all groups. There were no significant differences in occlusal contact area or force during the entire observation period among the three groups (P > .05). The occlusal contact area and force in the nonextraction and two maxillary premolar extraction groups recovered to Pre-Tx levels 2 years later (P > .05). The occlusal contact area in the four premolar extraction group was significantly lower than the Pre-Tx level after 2 years of retention (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The occlusal contact area and force showed a tendency to decrease immediately after treatment and then gradually increase to pretreatment levels during the observation period. However, the occlusal contact area did not recover fully after 2 years in the four premolar extraction group.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainersThe studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainersOne study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence).In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisonsAnother study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants.Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed.

Comparison of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hawley retainers (HRs) and vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) are the 2 most commonly used retainers in orthodontics. However, the basis for selection of an appropriate retainer is still a matter of debate among orthodontists. In this systematic review, we evaluated the differences between VFRs and HRs.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, and Pro-Quest) were searched with no language restriction. The relevant orthodontic journals and reference lists were checked for all eligible studies. Two article reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the primary studies.

RESULTS

A total of 89 articles were retrieved in the initial search. However, only 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. Some evidence suggested that no difference exists to distinguish between the HRs and VFRs with respect to changes in intercanine and intermolar widths after orthodontic retention. In terms of occlusal contacts, cost effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and survival time, there was insufficient evidence to support the use of VFRs over HRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials concerning these retainers are necessary to determine which retainer is better for orthodontic procedures.

Tooth positioners and their effects on treatment outcome

Malocclusion can also be corrected by means of clear removable appliances called as "tooth positioners" or "aligners". A tooth positioner is used to control settling and to minimize or eliminate relapse of the teeth after an orthodontic treatment. In this article, a complete review of the objectives, course of treatment, fabrication, and the materials used for fabrication of tooth positioners along with their importance and disadvantages were discussed. Tooth positioners did improve the overall orthodontic treatment outcome as quantified by the ABO (American Board of orthodontics) objective scoring method. But once the initial occlusal contact was achieved, the vertical movement of teeth was found to be inhibited.

Efficacy of 2 finishing protocols in the quality of orthodontic treatment outcome

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this prospective clinical study were to evaluate the quality of treatment outcomes achieved with a complex orthodontic finishing protocol involving serpentine wires and a tooth positioner, and to compare it with the outcomes of a standard finishing protocol involving archwire bends used to detail the occlusion near the end of active treatment.

METHODS

The complex finishing protocol sample consisted of 34 consecutively treated patients; 1 week before debonding, their molar bands were removed, and serpentine wires were placed; this was followed by active wear of a tooth positioner for up to 1 month after debonding. The standard finishing protocol group consisted of 34 patients; their dental arches were detailed with archwire bends and vertical elastics. The objective grading system of the American Board of Orthodontics was used to quantify the quality of the finish at each time point. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare changes in the complex finishing protocol; the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare changes between groups.

RESULTS

The complex finishing protocol group experienced a clinically significant improvement in objective grading system scores after treatment with the positioner. Mild improvement in posterior space closure was noted after molar band removal, but no improvement in the occlusion was observed after placement of the serpentine wires. Patients managed with the complex finishing protocol also had a lower objective grading system score (14.7) at the end of active treatment than did patients undergoing the standard finishing protocol (23.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Tooth positioners caused a clinically significant improvement in interocclusal contacts, interproximal contacts, and net objective grading system score; mild improvement in posterior band space was noted after molar band removal 1 week before debond.

Posterior occlusion changes with a Hawley vs Perfector and Hawley retainer. A follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize postorthodontic settling of the posterior occlusion of patients wearing Hawley retainers vs patients who initially wore Perfector retainers and then switched to Hawley retainers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This follow-up study was based on 40 patients (25 Perfector and 15 Hawley), who were part of a larger sample of 50 patients randomly assigned to wear either Hawley or Perfector retainers. The Perfector patients were given Hawley retainers 2 months after retainer delivery. Occlusal bite registrations were scanned and traced to quantify posterior areas of contact and near contact (ACNC). A seven-item questionnaire was used to assess the patient's perception of occlusion. Measurements were obtained at the on the day of retainer delivery, 2 months post delivery, 6 months post delivery, and 8 months post delivery.

RESULTS

ACNC increased significantly (P < .05) during the first 6 months of retainer wear. The ACNC of the Hawley and Perfector/Hawley groups increased by 129% and 105%, respectively, over 8 months of retention. The greatest increases in ACNC occurred during the first 2 months. The ACNC further increased between 2 and 6 months in both groups. The Perfector/Hawley group also showed slight increases in ACNC between 6 and 8 months. Overall group differences were not statistically significant. The Perfector/Hawley group perceived greater improvements in occlusion than the Hawley group, but group differences after 8 months were small.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial amounts of settling occurred at decelerating rates during the first 6 months after retainer delivery. No significant differences in ACNC were found between the Hawley and Perfector/Hawley groups after 8 months of retainer wear.

Effects of thermoplastic retainers on occlusal contacts

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the number of contacts in centric occlusion during retention with thermoplastic retainers (Essix retainers) and in the long term. After four premolar extractions and active orthodontic treatment of 15 Class I (10 females, 5 males; mean age 17.20 +/- 1.7 years), thermoplastic retainers were used. Occlusal contacts were determined from occlusal registrations taken in centric occlusion at the beginning (T0), end (9 months of retention; T1), and after 2.5 years (T2). The occlusal contacts determined in these patients were compared with the values of 15 'normal' Class I subjects (9 females, 6 males; mean age 17.10 +/- 1.60 years) who had not undergone orthodontic treatment. Wilcoxon and a Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to evaluate intra- and intergroup differences. No significant change was observed in the number of posterior contacts during T1, whereas a significant increase was found at T2 (P < 0.01) for the second premolars (P < 0.01) and second molars (P < 0.05). Both 'ideal' and 'non-ideal' contacts increased significantly but only at T2 (P < 0.05). The number of ideally located contacts on the posterior teeth at all three periods were lower than normal values (P < 0.01); while non-ideal contacts at T1 (P < 0.05) and T2 (P < 0.01) were found more often when compared with the values of normal subjects. Only the increased number of premolar contacts at T2 was more than normal values (P < 0.01). There was no expected increase in occlusal contacts at T2; however, posterior occlusal contacts were increased at T3.

Occlusal Contact Changes with Removable and Bonded Retainers in a 1-Year Retention Period

Objective: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the number of occlusal contacts in centric occlusion in patients treated with bonded and removable retention procedures and a control group during a 1-year retention period.

Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients received a removable Hawley retainer, and 25 patients received maxillary and mandibular bonded retainers. The retainer patients were compared with 20 control subjects with normal occlusions. Silicone-based impression bites were used to record occlusal contacts. Paired-sample t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey tests were used to evaluate intragroup and intergroup differences.

Results: An increased number of occlusal contacts were recorded in total-arch and posterior combined (actual/near) teeth during the retention period as compared with the control group. In the Hawley group, actual and total contacts on the first and second molar and actual contacts on the premolar and canine showed statistically significant increases. In the bonded retainer group, near and total contacts on the first and second molars and premolars showed statistically significant increases. Slight occlusal changes were seen in the control sample during the observation period, presumably from growth and development. ANOVA comparisons of total contacts of anterior and posterior teeth indicated statistically significant differences in the three groups on posterior segments.

Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. Both retention procedures allowed relative vertical movement of the posterior teeth, but the number of contacts on the posterior segment was increased more in the bonded retainer group than in the Hawley and control groups at the end of retention.

Comparison of the effects of Hawley and perfector/spring aligner retainers on postorthodontic occlusion

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term changes in posterior occlusion produced by perfector/spring aligner and Hawley retainers.

METHODS

In this prospective clinical study, we randomly assigned 50 patients who had completed full orthodontic treatment to a Hawley retainer group or a perfector/spring aligner retainer group. Objective and subjective measures were collected when the retainers were delivered (T1) and approximately 2 months later (T2). Blu Mousse (Parkell Bio-Materials, Farmingdale, NY) was used to quantify posterior areas of contact (<50 microm) and near contact (50-350 microm). The patient's perception of occlusion was assessed by using a 7-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Areas of contact and near contact (ACNC) in the Hawley group increased significantly (P <0.05) from 6.71 mm(2) at T1 to 10.97 mm(2) at T2; ACNC in the perfector/spring aligner group increased from 8.44 mm(2) at T1 to 12.95 mm(2) at T2. There were no significant (P <0.05) differences in the increases of ACNC between the Hawley group (4.50 mm(2)) and the perfector/spring aligner group (3.26 mm(2)). Spearman correlations showed that ACNC at T1 were positively related with ACNC at T2 and negatively related with T2 to T1 ACNC changes. In comparison with the Hawley group, the patients wearing perfector/spring aligner retainers reported significantly greater improvements in how well their back teeth fit together, how well they could chew tough meats, and how much pain they felt when they bit down.

CONCLUSIONS

ACNC increased substantially and similarly in patients wearing Hawley and perfector/spring aligner retainers. Changes over time were perceived to a greater extent by patients wearing perfector/spring aligner retainers.

Tooth Positioner Effects on Occlusal Contacts and Treatment Outcomes

Objective: To determine if an increase in tooth contacts is the principal effect of tooth positioner wear.

Materials and Methods: Patient charts from a consecutive series were reviewed until a sample of 100 cases that used a tooth positioner was obtained. One hundred control cases were randomly selected from patients treated at the same period. Malocclusion severity and finished occlusion were assessed with the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI) and Objective Grading System (OGS) score, respectively. Finish casts for each patient were mounted on a Galleti articulator. Occlusal registrations were obtained with silicone-based impression material from casts fabricated from impressions taken at the time of fixed appliance removal (control) or at the end of the tooth positioner treatment (experimental). The number of the perforations and transparent areas on the occlusal registrations were quantified.

Results: There was no significant difference (P = .20) in the number of total occlusal contacts between the two groups. However, the OGS score of the tooth positioner group (16.7) was significantly (P = .0009) better than for the control group (19.9).

Conclusions: Tooth positioners were effective in improving the occlusal finish, but the effects were independent of an increase in occlusal contacts. Positioners primarily improved first order alignment by tipping teeth into an improved intercuspation.

Occlusal contacts with different retention procedures in 1-year follow-up period

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this follow-up study was to evaluate the number of contacts in centric occlusion during a 1-year retention period in patients treated with 2 retention procedures and in a control sample.

METHODS

Twenty patients received modified wraparound Hawley retainers, and 20 received maxillary Jensen plates with mandibular fixed retainers. These retention patients were compared with a control group of 20 subjects with normal occlusions. Silicone-based impression bites were used to record occlusal contacts. Paired and independent-sample t tests were used to evaluate intragroup and intergroup differences.

RESULTS

Contacts increased in the total arch and the posterior combined (actual/near) during the retention period compared with the control group. In the Hawley retainer group, actual contacts on the second molars (P <.05), near contacts on the premolars (P <.05), and total contacts on the first molars (P <.05) and premolars (P <.01) had statistically significant increases. In the maxillary Jensen plate and mandibular fixed lingual retainer group, the number of actual contacts on the posterior segment increased. Actual contacts on the first molars (P <.01), second molars (P <.01), premolars (P <.05), and canines (P <.05), and total contacts on the first (P <.05) and second (P <.05) molars had statistically significant increases. During the observation period, some slight occlusal changes were seen in the control sample, presumably from growth and development. At the end of the study, during the 1-year follow-up period, no statistically significant occlusal contact differences were observed in the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Retention procedures carried out in this study allowed relative vertical movement of the posterior teeth.

Importance of occlusion aspects in the completion of orthodontic treatment

The purpose of this study was to address the therapeutic goals regarding the static and functional occlusion in the completion of orthodontic treatment. For such purpose, a study population comprising 20 female treated Class II malocclusion subjects with an initial mean age of 11 years underwent a two-phase treatment (orthopedics and orthodontics). The patients were diagnosed in centric relation and were treated according to the six keys for normal occlusion and functional occlusal parameters (centric relation, vertical dimension, lateral and anterior guidances, occlusal contacts and direction of forces applied on the teeth). After removal of fixed mechanics, retainers were installed and maintained for two years. Five years after orthodontic completion, the occlusal stability of the patients was evaluated regarding molar relationship and overjet, measured in dental casts. All subjects maintained the normal molar relationship and correct overjet achieved at the end of treatment, indicating a fair level of occlusal stability. The importance of the criteria of the ideal functional occlusion to ensure a better stability after completion orthodontic treatment will be discussed in detail in this paper. In addition, some clinical situations in which localized adjustments are indicated for occlusal refinement will be described.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic (dental) braces. Without a phase of retention there is a tendency for the teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse almost every patient who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's (OHG) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching of orthodontic journals was undertaken in keeping with the Cochrane OHG search programme. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on children and adults, who have had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken, following orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes were: how well the teeth were stabilised, survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. As no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable retainer versus a full-time removable retainer alone; CSF combined with a nights-only removable retainer versus a nights-only removable retainer alone; removable Hawley retainer versus a clear overlay retainer; multistrand wire retainer versus a ribbon-reinforced resin bonded retainer; and three types of fixed retainers versus a removable retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (lower) (P < 0.001) and maxillary (upper) anterior segments (P < 0.001) when the CSF was used, compared with when it was not used. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months. The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on retention at present. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this crucial area of orthodontic practice.

Reliability of recording static and dynamic occlusal contact marks using transparent acetate sheet

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Inaccuracy in the transfer of information between clinician and technician regarding occlusal contacts can cause problems when fabricating indirect restorations, which can result in frustration for the dentist, technician, and patient. Few studies have considered the reproducibility of recording marked occlusal contacts.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to test the reproducibility of a quick and simple means of recording marked occlusal contacts.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The static and dynamic occlusal contacts of 29 subjects, with no missing functional units, were marked using articulating paper. Three clinicians with varying clinical experience (3-10 years after graduation from dental school) were asked to independently record the marked occlusal contacts using a transparent acetate sheet. The results were analyzed for Kappa agreement.

RESULTS

For the static occlusion, Kappa values of agreement between pairs of examiners were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.85, respectively, all indicating "almost perfect agreement." For the dynamic occlusion, the range of Kappa agreement between pairs of examiners produced a median of 0.91, 0.88, and 0.85, respectively, indicating almost perfect strength of agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that marking occlusal contacts on a transparent acetate sheet provides a simple means of recording static and dynamic occlusal contacts with a high degree of reproducibility.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after orthodontic (dental) braces. Without a phase of retention there is a tendency for the teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse almost every patient who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: December 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on children and adults, who have had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken, following orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes are: how well the teeth are stabilised, survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. As no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable retainer versus a full-time removable retainer alone; circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with a nights-only removable retainer versus a nights-only removable retainer alone; removable Hawley retainer versus a clear overlay retainer; and three types of fixed retainers versus a removable retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (p < 0.001) and maxillary anterior segments (p < 0.001) when the CSF was used, compared with when it was not used. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months. The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on retention at present. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this crucial area of orthodontic practice.

Inter- and intra-operator reliability of the recording of occlusal contacts using 'occlusal sketch' acetate technique

OBJECTIVES

To develop a simple way of recording occlusal contacts with proven inter- and intra-operator reliability.

SETTING

Clinical skills laboratory in the University Dental Hospital of Manchester.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The marked static occlusal contacts of 20 sets of models were recorded in a pseudo-clinical situation, by three dentists and in addition by one dentist on two occasions using a schematic representation of the dental arch - the 'occlusal sketch'.

RESULTS

The median of Kappa agreement for inter- and intra-operator reliability was almost perfect.

CONCLUSIONS

The occlusal sketch is a simple, inexpensive and easy way of recording the results of an occlusal examination using marking papers.

A new method of evaluating posterior occlusion and its relation to posttreatment occlusal changes

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between posterior occlusion and posttreatment changes in other occlusal variables. Pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and postretention (T3) records were obtained for 49 Class I (n = 23) and Class II (n = 26) extraction cases. Overbite, overjet, mandibular incisor irregularity, right and left molar deviations, midline deviation, and mandibular arch length were measured, and occlusal registrations were made of each set of dental casts. The proximity of posterior occlusal surfaces was measured as the contact or near-contact areas at or below 300 microm thickness, based on the optical densities of scanned images of the posterior occlusal registrations. The treatment changes for overbite, overjet, right and left molar deviation, and arch length were significantly greater in the Class II group, and the reductions in incisor irregularity were greater in the Class I group. No other class differences were found. Overbite, overjet, and incisor irregularity increased after treatment, and arch length continued to decrease, with no significant class differences. Contact and near-contact areas at or below 300 microm constituted 7% of the functional occlusal table for both classes at the end of treatment, having decreased significantly in both groups (21% in Class I and 29% in Class II) during treatment. Because contact and near-contact areas increased in some patients and decreased in others, there were no significant posttreatment changes. Negative correlations were found between contact and near-contact areas at T2 and changes in overjet from T2 to T3, and between contact and near-contact areas at T3 and changes in overbite from T2 to T3. No relationships were found between posterior contact and near-contact area and incisor irregularity. We concluded that (1) the area of actual and near contacts at or below 300 microm decreased significantly with treatment, indicating that, despite excellent treatment results by conventional standards, the proximity of posterior occlusal surfaces lessened; (2) the proximity of the posterior occlusal surfaces should not be expected to increase posttreatment; (3) posttreatment contact and near-contact areas may be factors in overbite and overjet stability; and (4) posttreatment contact and near-contact areas are not related to incisor irregularity.

Standardized facial photography of cleft patients: just fit the grid?

OBJECTIVE

The objective results of craniofacial surgery are usually evaluated by comparing pre- and postoperative photographs. To allow for optimal comparison, these photographs should be of constant and reproducible lay-out and quality. For this, various techniques to standardize photography have been suggested.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

A review of the literature on standardization of medical photography is presented. The advantages and disadvantages of standardizing techniques are evaluated. The difficulty to achieve standardization in cleft patients is illustrated using clinical photographs. Our personal protocol is presented as it tries to optimize comparability of photographs.

RESULTS

Use of a grid or cephalostat will not lead to comparable photographs in cleft patients. Personal protocols also have shortcomings, but they offer reproducible and comparable results. A personal effort of the photographer is essential to adjust any allegedly standardizing protocol to the individual patient.

CONCLUSION

Photographs are only as good as the photographer. True standardization of facial photographs is a utopia in cleft patients.